[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations



On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
> > > > glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It
> > > > would be faster to move everything to non-free.
> > > 
> > > Neither the SC nor my proposed text enforce moving stuff to contrib,
> > 
> > It does, packages in main cannot (Build-)?Depend upon non-free, hence
> > must be moved to contrib.
> > 
> > If you move linux to non-free (ignoring the blatant silliness of such an
> > action), every package that needs linux-source would move to contrib.
> > Say kernel-package, m-a, all the kernel-patches, iptables, ...
> > everything. And ... even the glibc since it uses linux-libc-dev to
> > build, so in turn 90% of Debian shall go to contrib.
> 
> Don't you find it a bit contradictory that you're arguing that we should
> "bend SC #1" and at the same time argue that if we don't, we have to interpret
> SC #5 in such an overzealous way that compels us to do things that are not
> even in the text?

Huh ? If you go _your_ route, we should not bend any rules, to the point
where we break. I'm saying what it really means to not adapt and find a
more pragmatic solution, and you're saying _I'm_ advocating strict
interpretation ? Please...
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpMQpVp4oqar.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: